Egypt court to rule next month on challenge to upper house

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's highest court will rule next month on the legality of the upper house of parliament, judicial sources said on Sunday, in a case that throws more legal doubt over a political transition repeatedly disrupted by lawsuits.

A ruling against the Muslim Brotherhood-led upper house by the Supreme Constitutional Court on June 2 could lead to the dissolution of the chamber and result in legislative power being transferred to President Mohamed Mursi.

The case, brought by an independent parliamentary candidate, stems from a similar challenge to the lower house last year. That lawsuit resulted in the dissolution of the Islamist-led lower house after the court ruled that flaws in the election law, related to the number of seats reserved for independent candidates, rendered it unconstitutional.

Both are examples of the many lawsuits, filed mostly by Muslim Brotherhood opponents, that have complicated the transition from Hosni Mubarak's rule after he was swept from power by Egypt's 2011 uprising.

Elections for a new lower house of parliament were due to begin last month but were derailed by a court ruling annulling a Mursi decree setting the election dates.

The Islamists believe the judiciary to be stacked with Mubarak-era appointees who are working against them. However, the make-up of the Supreme Constitutional Court has changed since last year's ruling on the dissolution of the lower house.

The court is also due to rule on June 2 on the validity of a separate Islamist-dominated assembly that drafted a new constitution fast-tracked into law by Mursi in December.

Many Egyptians viewed the assembly as illegitimate because it did not fully represent the country's diversity. Most of the non-Islamist members, including liberals and representatives of the Coptic Church, withdrew, saying that Islamists were imposing their views.

The constitution was approved in a popular referendum, which some critics say offers it protection from legal challenge.

(Reporting by Maggie Fick; Editing by Tom Perry and David Goodman)

View the original article here

Venezuela opposition challenges Maduro's win in court

By Brian Ellsworth and Diego Ore

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles challenged President Nicolas Maduro's narrow election victory before the Supreme Court on Thursday, prolonging what appears to be a futile effort to overturn last month's vote.

Capriles refused to accept the results of the April 14 vote for a successor to late socialist leader Hugo Chavez, and called on supporters to take the streets. That led to unruly demonstrations in which the government says nine people died.

Few expect Capriles to win a favorable ruling from the court, which the opposition says is controlled by the ruling Socialist Party. He may also go to international tribunals, though most countries have recognized Maduro's win.

"This appeal seeks to annul the elections and request new presidential elections in Venezuela," said Gerardo Fernandez, a lawyer representing the opposition, who are intent on at least discrediting Maduro even if they cannot overrule the result.

"We've come to defend the citizens who voted in April 14."

Fernandez said the appeal includes complaints relating to incidents prior to the election. The opposition accuses Maduro of using state resources and government media for his campaign.

Capriles also alleges there were thousands of irregularities on voting day, ranging from intimidation of poll station volunteers to illegal campaigning by government supporters.

"This is not over. No one here can get tired or throw in the towel," Capriles told a news conference, adding that his team had found names of 200,000 dead people on the electoral register.

As on previous occasions, Capriles' news conference was interrupted on television after a few minutes by a government "cadena" broadcast that all local channels are obliged to show live.

Opposition supporters responded by banging pots-and-pans in some neighborhoods in a traditional form of protest in Venezuela and some other Latin American countries.

FRAGILE POST-CHAVEZ ERA

Maduro pillories Capriles daily as a sore loser and "bourgeois cry-baby." He accuses Capriles of fomenting post-vote violence, including killings of government supporters and attacks on government-run clinics.

Residents of one Caracas community affected by post-election violence told Reuters that two people were shot and killed by opposition sympathizers following a protest.

The government also attributed a third fatality in the La Limonera community to opposition violence, but locals said that man was a victim of common crime.

The election was triggered by the March 5 death of Chavez, whose charismatic leadership and oil-financed social largesse made him a hero to the poor but a pariah to critics who called him a dictator.

Though he was anointed as Chavez's successor, Maduro beat Capriles by only 1.5 percentage points in contrast to Chavez's 11 point victory over the same rival last year.

With a weaker vote mandate and without Chavez's innate charisma, Maduro seems to have less control over the disparate socialist coalition that his predecessor ruled with an iron hand.

The vote dispute led to a punch-up in Congress on Tuesday that put several opposition deputies in hospital. Video footage showed government allies repeatedly punching one deputy in the face, leaving him bloodied and bruised.

The deputies had raised a banner saying "Coup in Parliament" after the pro-government leadership of the legislature prevented them from speaking during the session unless they explicitly recognized Maduro as president.

The government responded with a broadcast, set to eerie, suspense-thriller music, showing opposition deputies waving arms and one throwing a chair.

Julio Borges, the opposition deputy who bore the most notable wounds from the fracas, called Maduro a "big liar" in a Twitter post. "I challenge you to show the Assembly's closed circuit video footage without editing anything," he said.

Maduro allies have in most cases said they regretted the violence, but blame the incident on provocation by opposition deputies interrupting the session with whistles and air horns.

The pugnacious Prisons Minister Iris Varela was less cautious. "They really deserved the beating that they got," she said, according to local media.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Cawthorne; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Venezuela opposition challenges Maduro's win in court

By Brian Ellsworth and Diego Ore

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles challenged President Nicolas Maduro's narrow election victory before the Supreme Court on Thursday, prolonging what appears to be a futile effort to overturn last month's vote.

Capriles refused to accept the results of the April 14 vote for a successor to late socialist leader Hugo Chavez, and called on supporters to take the streets. That led to unruly demonstrations in which the government says nine people died.

Few expect Capriles to win a favorable ruling from the court, which the opposition says is controlled by the ruling Socialist Party. He may also go to international tribunals, though most countries have recognized Maduro's win.

"This appeal seeks to annul the elections and request new presidential elections in Venezuela," said Gerardo Fernandez, a lawyer representing the opposition, who are intent on at least discrediting Maduro even if they cannot overrule the result.

"We've come to defend the citizens who voted in April 14."

Fernandez said the appeal includes complaints relating to incidents prior to the election. The opposition accuses Maduro of using state resources and government media for his campaign.

Capriles also alleges there were thousands of irregularities on voting day, ranging from intimidation of poll station volunteers to illegal campaigning by government supporters.

"This is not over. No one here can get tired or throw in the towel," Capriles told a news conference, adding that his team had found names of 200,000 dead people on the electoral register.

As on previous occasions, Capriles' news conference was interrupted on television after a few minutes by a government "cadena" broadcast that all local channels are obliged to show live.

Opposition supporters responded by banging pots-and-pans in some neighborhoods in a traditional form of protest in Venezuela and some other Latin American countries.

FRAGILE POST-CHAVEZ ERA

Maduro pillories Capriles daily as a sore loser and "bourgeois cry-baby." He accuses Capriles of fomenting post-vote violence, including killings of government supporters and attacks on government-run clinics.

Residents of one Caracas community affected by post-election violence told Reuters that two people were shot and killed by opposition sympathizers following a protest.

The government also attributed a third fatality in the La Limonera community to opposition violence, but locals said that man was a victim of common crime.

The election was triggered by the March 5 death of Chavez, whose charismatic leadership and oil-financed social largesse made him a hero to the poor but a pariah to critics who called him a dictator.

Though he was anointed as Chavez's successor, Maduro beat Capriles by only 1.5 percentage points in contrast to Chavez's 11 point victory over the same rival last year.

With a weaker vote mandate and without Chavez's innate charisma, Maduro seems to have less control over the disparate socialist coalition that his predecessor ruled with an iron hand.

The vote dispute led to a punch-up in Congress on Tuesday that put several opposition deputies in hospital. Video footage showed government allies repeatedly punching one deputy in the face, leaving him bloodied and bruised.

The deputies had raised a banner saying "Coup in Parliament" after the pro-government leadership of the legislature prevented them from speaking during the session unless they explicitly recognized Maduro as president.

The government responded with a broadcast, set to eerie, suspense-thriller music, showing opposition deputies waving arms and one throwing a chair.

Julio Borges, the opposition deputy who bore the most notable wounds from the fracas, called Maduro a "big liar" in a Twitter post. "I challenge you to show the Assembly's closed circuit video footage without editing anything," he said.

Maduro allies have in most cases said they regretted the violence, but blame the incident on provocation by opposition deputies interrupting the session with whistles and air horns.

The pugnacious Prisons Minister Iris Varela was less cautious. "They really deserved the beating that they got," she said, according to local media.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Cawthorne; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Ex-Catholic has no right to Church job: German court

By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters) - Germany's top labor court ruled on Thursday the country's Catholic charity network had the right to fire an employee who quit the Church in protest against the sexual abuse crisis and disputed decisions by ex-Pope Benedict.

The 60-year-old teacher, challenging his 2011 dismissal, had claimed his constitutional right to freedom of opinion trumped the Church's right to employ only Catholics who agreed with the religious mission of their jobs.

He said that his work at Caritas Germany tutoring grade-school children did not deal with religion and that pupils of all faiths were welcome there.

The decision was a victory for the mainline Protestant and Catholic churches, which together are Germany's largest employer after the public sector, against some lay employees and unions challenging the churches' special status in German labor law.

"The defendant's freedom of religion and conscience is certainly very important," the Erfurt-based court said in a statement. But it added that judges could not order the Church to employ someone who had officially given up his membership.

Pope Francis has stressed the religious aspect of Church work, saying soon after his election last month that the Church "may become a charitable NGO" (non-governmental organization) if it does social work and forgets to spread the Gospel.

Church membership is clearly defined in Germany because members must pay a "church tax" that is collected by the state.

A record number of more than 180,000 Catholics left the Church in protest in 2010 after a wave of revelations about the sexual abuse of children by priests over recent decades.

The defendant, who was not named but who was identified in media as Thomas Hellhake from Mannheim, said his decision to leave the Church was also influenced by Benedict's decisions to lift excommunication bans from four ultra-traditionalist bishops, including one notorious Holocaust denier.

He also objected to a Good Friday prayer in Latin that he approved for the use that Jews decried as anti-Semitic because it asks God to "remove the veil from their hearts."

The court decision was based on the loyalty requirement in the defendant's contract and not on the views that led him to leave the Church.

"Anyone who leaves the Church violates the precept of minimal loyalty," Matthias Kopp, spokesman for the Catholic bishops conference, told the Church-run Domradio in Cologne.

(Reporting By Tom Heneghan; Editing by Michael Roddy)

View the original article here

Teens in Audrie Pott case appear in court

Apr 15 (Reuters) - Leading money winners on the 2013 PGATour on Monday (U.S. unless stated): 1. Tiger Woods $4,139,600 2. Brandt Snedeker $3,137,920 3. Matt Kuchar $2,442,389 4. Adam Scott (Australia) $2,100,469 5. Steve Stricker $1,935,340 6. Phil Mickelson $1,764,680 7. Dustin Johnson $1,748,907 8. Jason Day $1,659,565 9. Hunter Mahan $1,553,965 10. Keegan Bradley $1,430,347 11. Charles Howell III $1,393,806 12. John Merrick $1,375,757 13. Russell Henley $1,331,434 14. Michael Thompson $1,310,709 15. Kevin Streelman $1,310,343 16. Bill Haas $1,271,553 17. Billy Horschel $1,254,224 18. ...

View the original article here

After court, gay rights spotlight shifts back to Obama

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama may have made a slow start on gay rights issues, but by the end of his first term his record was such that a news magazine dubbed him the nation's "first gay president." Now activists want more.

Fresh from historic Supreme Court arguments over same-sex unions, advocates want Obama to use his executive powers to fight discrimination at businesses, schools, and military bases and stop waiting for action from a reluctant Congress.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on big issues: the constitutional right to gay marriage and the right of gay married couples to federal benefits. Both are backed by Obama.

Now gay rights groups are pushing for additional measures they believe are key elements for cementing equality.

First on their wish list is an executive order from Obama barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, an act that could have sweeping impact.

"There is more that he can do," said Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, a non-profit organization supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. "He has repeatedly said as president that it's people's job to push him to do more and more, so we intend to keep doing that."

So far, the president helped bring an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military, signed hate crimes legislation into law, and mandated that nearly all U.S. hospitals give visitation rights to partners of LGBT patients.

Last year, in the middle of the presidential election, Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, concluding an "evolution" of his views that took years.

While Obama's advisers tout his record on the issue, they make clear that an executive order on federal contractors soon is unlikely, arguing that it would carry far less weight than broader congressional action. Legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) lacks enough votes to become law.

"We want to continue to advocate for legislation. We think that that's the most robust way to accomplish what we want to accomplish," White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told Reuters in an interview.

"ENDA is a priority. Right now the votes aren't there, but that doesn't mean they won't be," she said.

However, congressional aides say they see little evidence that the White House - already consumed by gun control, immigration reform and budget issues - is pushing to win support for ENDA.

Political support for gay rights is certainly gathering momentum - a point conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made in the March arguments when he told a lawyer defending same-sex marriage: "Political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."

Apart from a few exceptions, however, Republican lawmakers have not been vocal supporters of gay rights. On Friday, the Republican National Committee reaffirmed its commitment to defining marriage as between a man and a woman and called on the Supreme Court to "uphold the sanctity of marriage."

A NEW FOCUS

After lobbying successfully for Obama to weigh in against Proposition 8, a California measure prohibiting same-sex marriage that is now before the Supreme Court, gay rights activists argue executive action is the best way to keep up the momentum.

"Now the priority for our community is definitely continued progress on getting that executive order out of the administration," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign.

An order barring discrimination by federal contractors would apply to about 20 percent of the U.S. workforce, according to HRC. It would make it illegal for companies with U.S. government contracts to fire or avoid hiring employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity, just as it now is with race.

Federal action is necessary, activists say, because state laws are inconsistent. They say it is legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states and for being transgender in 34 states.

Some activists are skeptical that Obama is backing away from executive action because he believes Congress will act. They think he is wary of upsetting the business community by forcing a new regulation on it.

"This Congress is not going to pass ENDA, and they know that," said one activist, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois intend to introduce a bill on the issue, according to a Senate aide. However, a similar bill is stalled in committee in the House of Representatives, another aide said.

Obama's advisers believe he has proven his commitment to gay rights is more than lip service, and gay-rights advocates recognize that patience pays off.

Obama's actions, including his administration's decision to weigh in on Proposition 8 and decline to defend the Clinton-era federal Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, led Newsweek magazine to call him "The First Gay President" in a story on its cover last year.

"He said going in he wanted to do a lot, but I don't think anybody really was sure that he meant it. I put myself in that category, and I admit to being proven wrong," said Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser on gay issues to President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.

Critics say it took a while to get there. Some Obama backers were frustrated that his "evolution" on gay marriage took so long, and some thought the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not get its momentum from the White House.

"He supported it, he signed it, but it's clear that they weren't pushing it," Socarides said.

Now gay rights activists are cautious. Pushing too hard for an executive order would seem ungrateful and could backfire.

POLITICAL PAYOFF

Activists believe Obama could send other signals - for example, by naming an openly gay member to his cabinet.

He could also grant spouses of gay military personnel equal access to commissaries, allow them to live on bases rent free and give them access to legal services such as preparation of wills.

Legislatively, Obama could push for measures to include LGBT students in public school anti-bullying programs.

And, activists say, he could maintain his support for the inclusion of same-sex couples under protections offered by immigration reform efforts making their way through Congress.

Politically, Obama's actions so far have boosted his standing with young voters, and politicians from both parties have noticed, leading to a wave of new, high profile declarations of support in the last few weeks alone.

Exit polls from the 2012 presidential election showed 5 percent of voters considered themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual, and 76 percent of them supported Obama.

Since endorsing gay marriage, Obama underscored the point by referring to it during his Inaugural Address on January 21, tying the push for gay rights to the broader civil-rights movement.

Polls have shown a rapid shift in public opinion on gay rights issues, but Jarrett said that while Obama recognizes his role in shaping public opinion, that was not what drives him.

"This isn't a matter of satisfying a constituency. It's a matter of doing what's right," she said.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Mary Milliken and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Court rules Calif. driver can't use hand-held map

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Steven Spriggs was stopped in a traffic jam near downtown Fresno and thought nothing of whipping out his iPhone 4 and clicking on the map feature to see if there was an alternate route around the construction mess.

He was startled when he looked up and saw a California Highway Patrol motorcycle officer ordering him to pull over. He showed the officer that he was looking at a map and not texting or talking.

"'Pull over,'" Spriggs recalled the officer as saying. "'It's in your hand.'"

A little more than a year later, Spriggs is at the heart of a novel court case that has technology blogs and social media sites buzzing about the $160 ticket plus court costs he was ordered to pay for "distracted driving."

A court commissioner and then a three-judge appellate panel of the Superior Court found Spriggs guilty of violating a California law that bans motorists from texting or conducting phone conversations with hand-held devices.

The judges rejected Spriggs' argument that they were expanding the law by refusing to toss out the ticket he got in January 2012.

Spriggs, who graduated from law school but is not a practicing attorney, represented himself before the commissioner and then the appeals panel. He initially brought a paper map to court to argue that it was legal to hold it while driving. Not persuaded, the traffic court commissioner found him guilty.

Next, he appealed to the three-judge panel of Fresno Superior Court, arguing in a legal brief that the iPhone has a flashlight feature and other functions that can be useful to a driver and aren't as dangerous as texting or talking. That hearing last all of 30 seconds because no one from the CHP or district attorney's office appeared to oppose the appeal by Spriggs.

He still lost.

Fresno County Judge Kent Hamlin, writing on March 21 for the three-judge panel upholding the commissioner's ruling, said "the primary evil sought to be avoided is the distraction the driver faces when using his or her hands to operate the phone. That distraction would be present whether the wireless telephone was being used as a telephone, a GPS navigator, a clock or a device for sending and receiving text messages and emails."

The ruling doesn't apply outside of Fresno County.

Nevertheless, Spriggs said he is troubled that police can now pull over motorists they suspect of simply holding their mobile phones.

Spriggs, a fundraiser for Fresno State University, said he's unsure if he has the time or money to pursue further appeals to the California Court of Appeal and the state Supreme Court.

"I'm just a little guy who is frustrated," Spriggs said. "I don't see how they can extend this law."

He actually supports the prohibition on texting and conversing on hand-held devices while driving, saying his adult son's leg was badly broken in 2010 when he was struck by a motorist who was chatting on a mobile phone.

Judge Hamlin acknowledged in his ruling that changes in the law may be needed.

"It may be argued that the Legislature acted arbitrarily when it outlawed all 'hands-on' use of a wireless telephone while driving, even though the legal use of one's hands to operate myriad other devices poses just as great a risk to the safety of other motorists," the judge wrote in the March 21 ruling. "It may also be argued that prohibiting driving while using 'electronic wireless communications devices' for texting and emailing, while acknowledging and failing to prohibit perhaps even more distracting uses of the same devices, is equally illogical and arbitrary."

But the judge said it's up to the Legislature to amend the law. Until then, Hamlin wrote, courts are compelled to deem illegal nearly all uses of hand-held phone by motorists.

View the original article here

Analysis: Supreme Court energizes gay rights even as it resists

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After two days of Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, the United States may be left with this irony: While the high court is not likely to alter the constitutional landscape for gays, the justices nevertheless have provided a rallying point for the gay-rights cause.

Three major legal outcomes appeared likely as the justices on Wednesday ended the second dramatic day of arguments in the most closely watched dispute of their current term:

* The court would not rule that gay people need special constitutional protection from discrimination.

* The court would not declare a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

* At the same time, a majority would rule narrowly that the federal government must provide married same-sex couples the same benefits it gives their heterosexual counterparts.

Yet just as the nine black-robed justices made clear that they did not wish to play a leading role in the national conversation about same-sex marriage, they showed they could nonetheless raise its volume. Simply by agreeing to hear the two disputes - one over California's ban on same-sex marriage, the other over the federal law denying benefits to same-sex couples - the justices energized the debate.

Numerous public figures including former President Bill Clinton, who in 1996 signed the law forbidding same-sex couples from obtaining federal benefits, and prominent groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics in recent weeks came out vigorously in support of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights.

Individual members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - suddenly voiced new support for gay marriage.

Perhaps most dramatically, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, considered a possible future Republican presidential contender, earlier this month announced he was reversing his opposition to such same-sex marriage, citing the fact that his son two years earlier had told him he was gay.

Opponents of gay marriage have not witnessed any similar high-profile testimonials from people who were switching to their side. Recent opinion polls, taken in association with the Supreme Court's decision to take up the gay-marriage cases, have documented a surge in public support for same-sex unions.

The new cases also pushed the Obama administration to break new legal ground.

President Barack Obama had personally endorsed gay marriage but he had long asserted that same-sex marriage was a matter for the states to handle. At the last minute, however, his administration decided to enter the California dispute and argue that federal guarantees of constitutional equality forbid states from limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

The administration also contended that gays deserve extra constitutional protection from bias, as the Supreme Court has afforded women fighting sex discrimination.

Yet as much as the justices effectively propelled others to take a stand, they showed by their own comments and questions from the bench this week that they do not intend to be at the vanguard.

The lawyers who appeared on Tuesday and Wednesday were passionate in their presentations, yet none seemed to seize the justices and generate equal fervor.

To be sure, there were moments of excitement, including some sharp exchanges between lawyers and individual justices such as when Justice Elena Kagan challenged an attorney's assertion that government's overriding interest in marriage relates to procreation and childbearing.

'UNCHARTED WATERS'

There was also the suspense of what swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy might say. Kennedy sent conflicting messages at times, expressing concern about the children of gay parents who cannot marry but then suggesting the justices should be wise to stay out of "uncharted waters" on the issue.

There were moments of tedium, too, as the justices wrestled with procedural issues that could prevent them from deciding the merits of either case.

Such hurdles would likely prevent any decision on California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. A majority of the justices signaled they might not reach the merits, most likely because California state officials have declined to defend the law and Proposition 8 backers may lack "legal standing" in the case.

A court majority most certainly would not conclude - as the challengers to Proposition 8 argued on Tuesday - that all 50 U.S. states must allow same-sex marriage. Currently nine states permit such marriages, along with Washington, D.C.

Nothing that emerged in oral arguments on Wednesday over a provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would suggest that the justices had any second thoughts about delving into the larger issues of gay marriage. In fact, their comments reinforced the notion that a majority on the generally conservative court is not ready to carve out new rights for gays.

The Obama administration and other challengers to DOMA had urged the court to declare that government rules tied to sexual orientation deserve "heightened" scrutiny, meaning that the government needs an exceedingly persuasive justification for the regulation.

If the court were to adopt such a level of constitutional protection for gays, as it has in the gender-discrimination context, bans on same-sex marriage would be legally undermined. But that proposition for tougher judicial scrutiny in gay-bias cases gained no traction at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the national activity surrounding this week's cases might have demonstrated that gays are, in fact, a political force in no need of special protection.

"As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts told lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who was representing a New York woman denied a federal estate-tax exemption because her spouse was another woman, not a man.

Roberts may have been referring to national figures including Portman whose endorsement of gay marriage coincided with the court's consideration of the matter.

In the same vein, a record number of "friend of the court" briefs were submitted in the paired cases, most favoring gay rights. In yet another unusual move, marking one of corporate America's most high-profile efforts on same-sex marriage, close to 300 businesses urged the court to strike down the DOMA restriction. (Thomson Reuters Corp, which owns Reuters, was among them.)

Outside the marble-columned Supreme Court building, demonstrators rallying for gay marriage dominated the scene.

So no matter how this court ultimately rules - a decision is expected by late June - it seems clear that the justices' mere involvement was a boost to the gay-rights cause, at least in the court of public opinion.

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Eric Effron and Will Dunham)

View the original article here

Supreme Court indicates it may strike down marriage law

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second day running, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will confront the issue of gay marriage, hearing arguments on a U.S. law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Almost two hours of oral argument before the court will focus on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), just a day after the nine justices considered the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Both cases come before the court as polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage but division among the 50 states. Nine states recognize it; 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.

Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.

DOMA limits the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It permits benefits such as Social Security survivor payments and federal tax deductions only for married, opposite-sex couples, not for legally married same-sex couples.

President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 after it passed Congress with only 81 of 535 lawmakers opposing it. Clinton, a Democrat, earlier this month said that times have changed since then and called for the law to be overturned.

In the California case argued on Tuesday, the justices seemed wary of endorsing a broad right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, as gay rights advocates had wanted. As a result, the Proposition 8 case is less likely to influence how the court approaches DOMA, which presents a narrower question.

The slightly lower-profile case being argued Wednesday focuses on whether Edith Windsor, who was married to a woman, should get the federal estate tax deduction available to heterosexuals when their spouses pass away.

Windsor's marriage to Thea Spyer was recognized under New York law, but not under DOMA. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay federal estate tax because the federal government would not recognize her marriage. She sued the government, seeking a $363,000 tax refund.

Windsor's lawyers say the federal government has no role in defining marriage, which is traditionally left to states.

"It's the states that marry people," said James Esseks, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is part of Windsor's legal team. "The federal government doesn't do that."

The roughly 133,000 gay couples nationwide, married in one of the nine states where it is legal, are not recognized as married by the federal government, Windsor's supporters say.

Various groups are calling for DOMA to be struck down, such as the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, whose members include Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency.

OBAMA TURNS BACK ON DOMA

The Obama administration has agreed with Windsor that the section of law that defines marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The Justice Department has therefore declined to defend the statute, as it normally would when a federal statute is challenged.

That has left a legal group acting on behalf of the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG, as the party defending the federal law. Its lawyer, Paul Clement, will argue that there are several reasons to support Congress' decision to enact DOMA.

Noting the strong bipartisan support the law attracted when it was first enacted, Clement said in court papers that a move to strike it down as unconstitutional "would be wholly unprecedented."

Before the court reaches that bigger question, preliminary matters could prevent the court deciding the case. One is whether BLAG has legal standing.

If such a procedural issue prevents the court from deciding the case on the merits, Windsor would win her refund. Yet DOMA would remain on the books in parts of the country where courts have not ruled on it. Further litigation would likely ensue.

(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here

Supreme Court wary of broad gay marriage ruling

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - America's top court takes up the delicate and divisive issue of gay marriage on Tuesday when the nine Supreme Court justices consider the legality of a California ballot initiative that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Tuesday will be the first of two days of oral arguments on the issue. On Wednesday, the court will consider the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.

In what is scheduled to be about three hours of deliberations with lawyers over the two days, the justices will have their say on what gay activists see as a key civil rights issue reminiscent of famous Supreme Court cases of the past, including Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 case in which the court invalidated bans on interracial marriage.

The cases come before the high court at a time when more states have legalized gay marriage. Last year three more - Maryland, Maine and Washington - did so, bringing the total to nine plus the District of Columbia.

"Never before in our history has a major civil rights issue landed on the doorstep of the Supreme Court with this wave of public support," said Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for opponents of the California initiative, which is known as Proposition 8.

Strong opposition to gay marriage still exists, however, both among Republicans in Congress and in many states across the nation. A total of 30 states, including California, have constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage. Nine states, including California, recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships among same-sex couples.

Advocates for both sides plan to demonstrate outside the multi-columned Washington courthouse. Those who plan to attend include Chief Justice John Roberts' cousin Jean Podrasky, a lesbian from California who would like to marry her partner.

"There's no fundamental right to same sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution," said Austin Nimocks, a member of the legal team arguing in support of the California law.

Some legal experts think that with the issue unsettled in the states, a majority of the justices might not be inclined to make any sweeping pronouncements on the issue as the democratic process plays out.

MULTIPLE OPTIONS

There are various ways in which they could do that as the Proposition 8 case presents the justices with multiple options.

The justices could proclaim that gay marriage bans are constitutionally unsound. They could uphold Proposition 8 as a law with a legitimate purpose that was approved by a majority of voters in California. They could also plot a middle path by striking down the law without making any broad pronouncements about whether gay marriage bans in other states that have them should be struck down.

Another way the court could rule might be viewed as an anticlimax of sorts: The justices could simply decide that it cannot rule on the merits because of the procedural complexities that brought the case to the high court.

The state of California declined to support Proposition 8 when the plaintiffs filed suit in 2009 in a federal district court in San Francisco, meaning there was no party defending the law until its proponents entered the case. The federal judge struck the law down, a ruling that was upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A Supreme Court decision concluding that the law's backers do not have legal standing to defend the law would wipe out the appeals court decision, but leave the district court decision that struck down Proposition 8 on the books.

The way the justices rule could depend in large part on the likely swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy. Although a conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Kennedy has in the past authored two opinions that expanded gay rights.

Lawyers representing two same-sex couples in California who want to marry are hoping the justices will go big and are making the most sweeping arguments.

The counsel for Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo will argue that under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee, there is a fundamental right for people to marry someone of the same sex.

Kris Perry, who has raised four children with her partner, Sandy Stier, was hopeful and optimistic.

"We have been waiting for a long time to get married," she said last week. "We are very excited to have the end in sight."

(To follow oral arguments both days, visit the Reuters live blog at http://reut.rs/scotus1)

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Indiana court upholds broadest school voucher program

By Stephanie Simon

(Reuters) - The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously upheld the nation's broadest school voucher program, which lets poor and middle-class students attend private schools at public expense.

Opponents, including the state teachers union, had sued to block the program on grounds that nearly all the voucher money has been directed to religious schools.

Voucher systems have drawn flak across the United States from critics who say they drain money from public schools and are abused by wealthy families. Supporters say they offer families greater choice on where to educate their children.

In a 5-0 vote, the Indiana justices said that it did not matter that funds had been directed to religious schools, so long as parents - and not the state - decide where to use the tuition vouchers.

"Whether the Indiana program is wise educational or public policy is not a consideration," Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote. The program is constitutional, he wrote, because the public funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."

The Supreme Court used similar reasoning in a 2002 ruling upholding a voucher program in Cleveland. Since then, voucher programs have been challenged in state, rather than federal, court. But opponents have found it an uphill climb.

Just last month, a state appeals court in Colorado upheld a voucher program that helped parents in one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. pay private school tuition. The case is on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Another closely-watched voucher case is pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court; a ruling is expected soon.

The Indiana voucher program is considered among the broadest in the U.S. because it is not limited to low-income students or those attending failing schools -- and because it is available to children statewide. A family of four with a household income of $64,000 a year is eligible for vouchers worth up to $4,500 per child.

This year, more than 9,000 students in Indiana are receiving vouchers; many are using them to pay tuition at parochial schools. Republican Governor Mike Pence has pushed to expand the program by opening eligibility to special-needs students and children in military families if their household income is as high as $85,000 for a family of four.

The Indiana legislature is also considering a bill that would give vouchers to kindergarten students who meet the income guidelines. The program currently requires students to spend a full year in public schools before they are eligible for a voucher.

Nationally, 12 states and Washington, D.C. offer vouchers to some students. An estimated 100,000 students across the country participate.

Teachers have complained that the vouchers divert money from traditional public schools.

"Just because the Indiana Supreme Court said it's OK by our constitution doesn't mean this is a good idea," said Teresa Meredith, vice president of the Indiana State Teachers Association and a plaintiff in the case. "I don't believe it's a wise use of public money. It's still, at the end of the day, funding religious instruction" with tax dollars."

Supporters of the voucher program predicted that the ruling would clear the way for a rapid expansion of vouchers in Indiana and statewide.

"Kids and parents won today," said Robert Enlow, president of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which supports voucher programs nationally. "Other states should look at this victory and see that the education establishment's ability to obstruct families' freedom to choose is waning."

(Reporting by Stephanie Simon, editing by Scott Malone and Andrew Hay)

View the original article here

Indiana court upholds broadest school voucher program

By Stephanie Simon

(Reuters) - The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously upheld the nation's broadest school voucher program, which lets poor and middle-class students attend private schools at public expense.

Opponents, including the state teachers union, had sued to block the program on grounds that nearly all the voucher money has been directed to religious schools.

Voucher systems have drawn flak across the United States from critics who say they drain money from public schools and are abused by wealthy families. Supporters say they offer families greater choice on where to educate their children.

In a 5-0 vote, the Indiana justices said that it did not matter that funds had been directed to religious schools, so long as parents - and not the state - decide where to use the tuition vouchers.

"Whether the Indiana program is wise educational or public policy is not a consideration," Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote. The program is constitutional, he wrote, because the public funds "do not directly benefit religious schools but rather directly benefit lower-income families with school children."

The Supreme Court used similar reasoning in a 2002 ruling upholding a voucher program in Cleveland. Since then, voucher programs have been challenged in state, rather than federal, court. But opponents have found it an uphill climb.

Just last month, a state appeals court in Colorado upheld a voucher program that helped parents in one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. pay private school tuition. The case is on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Another closely-watched voucher case is pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court; a ruling is expected soon.

The Indiana voucher program is considered among the broadest in the U.S. because it is not limited to low-income students or those attending failing schools -- and because it is available to children statewide. A family of four with a household income of $64,000 a year is eligible for vouchers worth up to $4,500 per child.

This year, more than 9,000 students in Indiana are receiving vouchers; many are using them to pay tuition at parochial schools. Republican Governor Mike Pence has pushed to expand the program by opening eligibility to special-needs students and children in military families if their household income is as high as $85,000 for a family of four.

The Indiana legislature is also considering a bill that would give vouchers to kindergarten students who meet the income guidelines. The program currently requires students to spend a full year in public schools before they are eligible for a voucher.

Nationally, 12 states and Washington, D.C. offer vouchers to some students. An estimated 100,000 students across the country participate.

Teachers have complained that the vouchers divert money from traditional public schools.

"Just because the Indiana Supreme Court said it's OK by our constitution doesn't mean this is a good idea," said Teresa Meredith, vice president of the Indiana State Teachers Association and a plaintiff in the case. "I don't believe it's a wise use of public money. It's still, at the end of the day, funding religious instruction" with tax dollars."

Supporters of the voucher program predicted that the ruling would clear the way for a rapid expansion of vouchers in Indiana and statewide.

"Kids and parents won today," said Robert Enlow, president of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which supports voucher programs nationally. "Other states should look at this victory and see that the education establishment's ability to obstruct families' freedom to choose is waning."

(Reporting by Stephanie Simon, editing by Scott Malone and Andrew Hay)

View the original article here

Analysis: Supreme Court seems poised to avoid same-sex marriage tide

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For nearly four years, proponents of same-sex marriage have been strategically building a test case aimed at convincing the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to declare that gay marriage is a constitutional right. The advocates felt they were ready.

But on Tuesday, after an intense, wide-ranging hearing, it appeared the justices were not.

Over the course of the 80-minute session, it seemed that for the array of gay rights supporters across the country, neither their greatest hopes nor worst fears would be realized.

A majority of the justices suggested by their comments and questions that they were not prepared to rule on whether a fundamental right exists for gays and lesbians to marry. Some justices even suggested that the specific case before them, testing the validity of a 2008 California ballot initiative that defined marriage as only between a man and woman, might not be resolved on the merits.

The justices return to the bench on Wednesday for the narrower question of whether the federal government may deny benefits to married same-sex couples that are allowed their opposite-sex counterparts.

The court has several options on how it might resolve that case, from a finding that the Republican-dominated congressional group defending the law lacks "legal standing," resulting in dismissal, to a decision striking down the provision and robustly declaring that all laws tied to sexual orientation deserve tough judicial scrutiny.

That latter stance could eventually pave the way for gay marriage laws nationwide, well beyond the nine states and District of Columbia that now allow it. But from the tone of arguments on Tuesday, a majority would likely resist that route.

Justices across the ideological spectrum suggested they wanted to tread a cautious path in the cases that have become the most closely watched of the term.

The white marble and crimson velvet courtroom was crowded with nearly 400 spectators, some of whom had waited since last Thursday, in snow and rain, for seats. The paired cases have drawn a record number of "friend of the court" briefs and become the occasion for near daily declarations in support of gay marriage from public figures and prominent organizations.

'UNCHARTED WATERS'

Yet the justices do not seem ready for a role on centerstage in the matter. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, questioned whether the issue should percolate a little longer in the states. Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, asserted that the notion of same-sex marriage was newer than today's ubiquitous cellphones and perhaps not ready for judicial intervention. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, the usual swing vote, likened the court's possible journey in the case to going into "uncharted waters" or even over "a cliff."

If the court avoids the looming question about a fundamental right, it could disappoint the two main lawyers pushing for same-sex marriage - Theodore Olson, who argued Tuesday, and David Boies, the legal partner who sat at his side. Yet, it would also mean that the worst-case scenario envisioned by other gay rights supporters would be avoided, too.

Their concern was certainly understandable. The Supreme Court's past cases on gay rights in narrower contexts, in 1996 and 2003, were vigorously fought. Four of the current nine justices are new to the gay rights issue. The bench is not as predictable as in the past, and overall, because Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, the court may be more conservative on social policy.

So in May 2009, when Olson and Boies, former opponents from the 2000 presidential election case of Bush v. Gore, suddenly filed their challenge to Proposition 8, many gay rights activists and leaders expressed concern. Advocates who had been concentrating their efforts in the states worried that a federal case could backfire with a decision upholding Proposition 8 and declaring no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

But that outcome now seems unlikely. While Supreme Court justices sometimes reverse course from the tone of arguments, it seems no major constitutional ruling will emerge from the California case of Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Justices on the right and left questioned whether proponents of Proposition 8, who took up its defense after California officials declined, have legal standing.

"Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked lawyer Charles Cooper, representing Proposition 8 supporters. Cooper said no but stressed that California's Supreme Court had ruled that under state law the backers of Proposition 8 should be allowed to defend it.

Chief Justice John Roberts voiced doubt, saying that "a state can't authorize anyone to proceed in federal court," because federal judges themselves determine who may bring claims.

LEGAL STANDING

Yet these questions of legal standing were in the case when the appeal from Proposition 8 supporters arrived on the Supreme Court's doorstep last year. And the court nonetheless took the appeal. It requires only four of the nine justices to accept a case for oral arguments; it takes five to resolve it.

Perhaps the thorny procedural hurdles became more obvious as the justices prepared for Tuesday's hearing. Or, perhaps that area might be the only one of common ground. There appeared to be no majority for either side's constitutional assertions.

Cooper argued that the states may limit marriage to heterosexual couples because of their interest in procreation and child rearing. Justice Elena Kagan, particularly, hammered at that notion, asking whether the court could block an older couple, possibly beyond their fertile years, from marrying.

Olson argued that Proposition 8 "walls off gays and lesbians from marriage," the most important relationship they might have. Roberts expressed doubt that California was plainly excluding a particular group. "When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say 'let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals.' The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples."

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has been the most outspoken opponent of gay rights on this court, challenged Olson to say exactly when same-sex marriage became the constitutional norm.

Olson could not but rather asserted: "It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control. There is no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle."

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Eric Effron and Eric Beech)

View the original article here

Supreme Court to weigh IRS penalties on alleged tax dodges

By Patrick Temple-West

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Internal Revenue Service's practice of slapping steep, 40-percent penalties on participants in certain alleged tax shelters will soon come to trial before the Supreme Court.

Though it rarely hears tax matters, the court has decided to weigh in on a case involving Texas billionaire Billy Joe "Red" McCombs, a former owner of professional sports teams.

The court's decision, not expected until June 2014, will likely have implications beyond McCombs' case, tax lawyers said.

Oral arguments will be scheduled when the high court's next term begins in October.

The Obama administration's solicitor general is arguing that "hundreds of millions of dollars" in tax penalties are hanging in the balance, according to court filings. However, the decision will only apply to cases brought prior to 2010.

The case being taken up by the court involves a 1999 transaction undertaken by McCombs and his business partner, Gary Woods. The government contends it had no purpose other than tax avoidance. The transaction was known as "current options bring reward alternatives," or COBRA.

According to the government, Woods and McCombs bought and sold options on foreign currencies to generate paper losses used to offset gains chiefly related to McCombs's sports ventures.

The IRS initially applied a 40-percent penalty on the unpaid taxes that the agency said were owed, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in 2012 that the 40-percent penalty did not apply in the Woods case.

Woods is already subject to a 20 percent tax penalty on COBRA and the Supreme Court need not step in, Woods's lawyer has argued in court filings.

The lawyer representing Woods did not respond to requests for comment. Calls to San Antonio-based McCombs Partners, an investment management business which lists both Red McCombs and Gary Woods on its website, were not returned.

The IRS did not comment.

The government is arguing Woods and McCombs claimed more than $45 million in losses in 1999, from transactions that cost them only $1.37 million.

The COBRA strategy has drawn attention beyond the Woods case. COBRA was among a number of alleged tax shelter strategies subject to an IRS crackdown a decade ago.

Congress in 2010 passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which slapped a 40-percent penalty on transactions such as COBRA. The penalty was to apply to taxpayers found by the IRS to have made "gross valuation misstatements" on their tax filings.

With Congress ensuring that transactions like COBRA cannot escape the 40-percent penalty, a government win in the Woods case "won't have much impact on the future," said Andrew Roberson, a partner with law firm McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

For pre-2010 cases still in limbo, "it's obviously important for the IRS to get a win at the highest level," he said.

The Woods tax shelter was promoted by Big Four accounting firm Ernst & Young, according to court documents. This month, Ernst agreed to a $123 million settlement to resolve a federal investigation into tax shelters it promoted.

The case is United States v Woods No. 12-562 (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-562.htm).

(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Andrew Hay)

View the original article here

Court justices take on fertility question

Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan attends U.S. President Barack Obama's State …In Tuesday's oral arguments over whether California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a few of the liberal Supreme Court justices took aim at one of the central arguments made by gay marriage opponents: that the ability to naturally procreate is key to the definition of marriage.

Charles Cooper, the attorney representing proponents of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, argued that allowing same-sex nuptials would fundamentally change the definition of marriage for the worse.

"The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults," Cooper said.

Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, pressed Cooper on that argument, asking him why then the government could not bar couples who are both over the age of 55 from marrying, on the assumption that they are infertile.

Cooper replied that it would violate the Constitution to ban older people from marrying.

"Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples—both parties to the couple are infertile," Cooper began, before he was interrupted by the audience in the courtroom erupting into laughter.

"I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan retorted, provoking more laughter.

Justice Antonin Scalia jumped into the fray, joking that "Strom Thurmond was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed."

Thurmond, the late South Carolina Republican senator, fathered children well into his 70s with his decades-younger wife. Kagan pointed out that in her hypothetical, both members of the couple would be over 55, not just the man.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also cast doubt on the procreation aspect of Cooper's argument, reminding him that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that prisoners have a right to marry even if they are locked up and unable to procreate with their new spouse. Cooper replied that even in that case, the prison was a co-ed facility and it's possible the prisoner would have had children.

Outside of this exchange, Cooper did not rely heavily on the natural procreation point in arguing the government should bar gay people from marrying. In his brief opening statement, Cooper urged the justices to allow Americans to engage in "an an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples" by not declaring from the bench that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

View the original article here

Supreme Court agrees to hear Michigan affirmative action case

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider a Michigan law that bans affirmative action in public college admissions.

The consideration of race in the admissions process, aimed at correcting past racial discrimination, is deeply unpopular in conservative circles.

In November, a sharply divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found that the 2006 state constitutional amendment banning the practice, approved by voters in Michigan, imposed burdens on racial minorities in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The state challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court.

The Michigan law bans preferential treatment toward any candidates in public university admissions.

The high court is simultaneously considering a case on whether colleges and universities can continue to give special preference to minority candidates in admissions policies, in a case involving the University of Texas. A ruling in that case, Fisher v. University of Texas, is expected imminently and will come no later than the end of June.

That the court agreed to hear the Michigan case before deciding the Texas case is unusual. The court's normal practice is to wait until it has issued a ruling before agreeing to hear another case on a related issue. This may mean that the court is struggling to decide the Texas case, or that the ruling could be coming as soon as this week.

A district court judge upheld the state law in the Michigan case, but a three-judge panel of the appeals court struck it down in 2011. The full appeals court reheard the case the following year and struck the law down on a 8-7 vote.

The majority of the appeals court said the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does more than guarantee equal treatment under the law. It also prevents laws from being passed that change the political process to impose extra burdens on minorities, the court said.

"ON ITS HEAD"

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican, wrote in the state's brief seeking the high court's review that the appeals court had adopted a theory that has been rejected by other courts in striking down a law that 58 percent of voters approved.

"Entrance to our great colleges and universities must be based upon merit, and I remain optimistic moving forward in our fight for equality, fairness and rule of law at our nation's highest court," Schuette added.

The challengers to the law are split into two groups.

One group, including the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said it wanted the Supreme Court to hear the case even though the group won at the appeals court level. The issue is one of "surpassing national importance" that warrants the Supreme Court's attention, attorney George Washington wrote in a court filing.

In a statement, Washington said the law's supporters "are creating a new form of separate and unequal in a nation that will soon be majority minority," a reference to the growth in the United States of the minority population.

The other group, consisting of prospective college students, said there was no need for the justices to review the case because the 6th Circuit had applied court precedents correctly. Their attorney could not immediately be reached for comment.

In Monday's brief order announcing that the Supreme Court will hear the Michigan case, the court noted that Justice Elena Kagan is recused, meaning there is a possibility of a 4-4 split. Kagan is a former solicitor general under President Barack Obama.

Oral argument and a decision are expected in the court's next term, which runs from October 2013 to June 2014.

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-682.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here

As Supreme Court reviews gay marriage, Illinois battle heats up

By Mary Wisniewski

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Like many gay couples in the United States, Theresa Volpe and Mercedes Santos of Chicago will be keeping a close eye on the U.S. Supreme Court this week as it hears arguments on two same-sex marriage cases.

The high court review coincides with a crucial moment at home in the couple's fight to make Illinois the tenth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. Volpe and Santos, who have personally lobbied Illinois lawmakers on this issue, worry about delays in drumming up enough votes for passage of a bill in their state and a growing campaign from opponents.

Supporters had hoped the bill would sail through the Democratic-majority legislature in President Barack Obama's home state in January. But it took until Valentine's Day to go through the Senate and was still several votes short in the House by late March.

"What's going on in Illinois is a little disturbing - we're worried and anxious, but I know they're working hard to make things happen," said Santos, who is bringing up two children with Volpe.

The delay underscores the difficulty of securing approval for gay marriage, even in a state with strong Democratic majorities in the legislature and a Democratic governor who supports it.

During a two-week legislative spring break that began on Monday, both sides were intensifying their efforts.

Opponents of the bill are focusing mainly on the more conservative and rural areas of the state south of Chicago, and some African-American districts in Chicago.

More than 425,000 robo-calls have been placed to constituents in more than 20 districts, according to Paul Caprio, director of Family-Pac, an Illinois-based family values political action group opposed to gay marriage.

Calls to six African-American districts have featured the voice of former state Senator James Meeks, a prominent Chicago black minister opposed to same-sex nuptials.

"We've had tremendous response from the minority community on this issue," Caprio said.

In one call to people in southwestern Illinois, Caprio's voice asks voters whether their state lawmaker stands for "the Chicago homosexuals, or your family?"

'LIKE ANY OTHER FAMILY'

Bernard Cherkasov, executive director of Equality Illinois, a Chicago-based gay rights organization, said proponents were focusing more on personal appeals to legislators from constituents, including ministers and rabbis and gay couples themselves.

"I do feel really optimistic. We're really close, we're in striking distance to passing the bill," he said.

Volpe, 42, and Santos, 47, are among the gay couples who taken their appeal to lawmakers in the Illinois state capital of Springfield.

They have been together for 21 years and have two children, Ava, 8, and Jaidon, 4, conceived through an anonymous donor. The couple became outspoken advocates for gay marriage after Jaidon suffered kidney failure two years ago and was in danger of dying.

While Theresa filled out the paperwork at the hospital, Mercedes sat with him in his room. But then Theresa was told she could not see Jaidon, as there was no hospital policy for two mothers.

They believe marriage will be easier to explain to people at hospitals and other facilities than the civil union they formed after Illinois approved that option in 2011. And they want the federal rights heterosexual couples have, including Social Security benefits and tax exemptions for a surviving spouse's inheritance.

"We want people to realize that we're just like any other family - we love our kids - we don't do anything special but be parents," Santos said.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a challenge against California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8. On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes gay couples from federal benefits.

It is difficult to predict how the court might rule on Proposition 8, and how that would affect other states. One option could affect Illinois and other states that are like California in allowing civil unions but forbidding actual marriage. The Obama administration wants the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 because it relegates such same-sex civil unions to a lower legal status.

Public opinion nationally has been turning in favor of gay marriage and civil unions. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-March found 63 percent of Americans in favor of gay marriage or civil unions.

(Additional reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Greg McCune, Mary Milliken and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Analysis: Obama's climate agenda may face setbacks in federal court

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's plan to use federal agencies, and the Environmental Protection Agency in particular, to drive his second-term climate change agenda might be in peril if he cannot fill vacant seats on the federal court that has jurisdiction over major national regulations, legal experts say.

Obama is the first full-term president in more than a half century not to have appointed a single judge to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The court, considered the second most important in the nation, decides cases challenging agency regulations such as those involving the EPA's Clean Air Act and often serves as a feeder to the Supreme Court.

New York attorney Caitlin Halligan, Obama's first nominee to fill one of four vacant seats on the 11-judge bench, announced her withdrawal on Friday after Republicans twice blocked her nomination over concerns about a 2001 case in which she represented New York state and argued that gun manufacturers had created a "public nuisance" under state law.

Obama said in a statement on Friday that he was "deeply disappointed" that a minority of senators continued to block an up-or-down vote on her nomination after two and a half years.

Meanwhile, Obama's second pick, former corporate lawyer Sri Srinivasan, will have a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the next few weeks after being delayed in 2012 by Republican requests for more information about his role in the settlement of a housing act case as a U.S. deputy solicitor general.

While some fault Republicans for slow-walking the appointment of judges that would shift the balance of the court to Democrat-appointed judges, others fault Obama for not taking advantage of the now-four open seats and making judicial appointments a political priority. Two of the four vacant seats have been open since Obama came into office in January 2009. The seat Halligan was nominated for has been vacant since 2005.

Some legal experts warn that under the status quo - four Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees among active judges - Obama's plan to bypass a deeply partisan Congress to address climate change using existing authorities will not be easy.

"There is really no moving forward with regulation without going to the DC Circuit and the decision of the court could really have major consequences," said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's law school.

The court hears all challenges to government agency regulations.

And regardless of the political balance, some warn the short-staffed court will have a hard time handling a growing case load of challenges to increasingly complex EPA regulations.

"There is a reason why there are 11 judges on that court of appeals," said John Cruden, director of the Environmental Law Institute. "They (cases) will take longer to resolve than they are right now because they are more complicated and they require and demand a lot of attention."

A former D.C. circuit judge on the court from 1979 to 1999 last month termed the ongoing vacancies a cause of "extreme concern" because the court lacks the manpower to carry out its "weighty mandate," which includes cases ranging from environmental protection to civil rights to national security.

Patricia Wald, who was an appointee of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, wrote in a February 28 op-ed in the Washington Post that the number of pending cases per judge has grown to 188 today from 119 in 2005.

Although the court's six senior status judges can hear cases, they cannot participate in re-hearings. Five of those six judges are Republican appointees.

AUTOMATIC CHALLENGE

Obama said in his February State of the Union address that he would direct his cabinet to take steps to curb carbon emissions if lawmakers fail to enact legislation - a likely outcome in the deeply divided Congress.

The EPA is expected to be at the center of Obama's climate efforts. It is due this year to finalize emissions standards for new power plants and industrial facilities. After that, it will set a standard for the country's power plants and industrial sources that account for nearly 40 percent of domestic emissions.

The proposed regulations will almost certainly be challenged by industry, including electric utility companies and manufacturers, who argue the agency is wrongly interpreting the Clean Air Act to write its standards.

"He (Obama) can lean as heavily as he wants on the EPA and its all for nothing if he gets the wrong panel reviewing what they do," said Tom McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas law school in Austin, who specializes in environmental and administrative law.

Three-judge panels are assigned randomly to resolve cases brought to the court. With just seven active judges, many of the same judges will deliberate similar EPA challenges.

Some analysts say the court has become more polarized on these issues, making the outcome largely dependent on the panel that gets selected - a roll of the dice.

Some also expect delays or revisions to the EPA's proposed standard for new power plants beyond an April 13 deadline as the agency anticipates inevitable challenges in the DC circuit and uncertainty about how the judges will rule.

"It's certainly possible that the EPA has recognized that it needs to be a little less aggressive in its interpretation and implementation of its authority," said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

Recent setbacks in the DC circuit might have reminded EPA that its technical and legal analysis needs to be bullet proof.

One such loss was the court's 2-1 decision in August to strike down an EPA rule to curb sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants that cause acid rain and smog across state lines. The decision called on the agency to rewrite the rules, a process that could take years.

Two of the three judges ruling on the case said the EPA exceeded its "jurisdictional limits" in interpreting the Clean Air Act. The EPA asked for a full-court hearing in January but it was denied.

The court ruled more favorably for the EPA in June, though, when it upheld agency rules on greenhouse gas emissions, including the scientific justification to regulate them because they endanger public health.

But new standards for power plants, mercury and hazardous materials, ozone rules and other controversial regulations will face uncertain fates in the court if the status quo continues.

NYU's Livermore said that, while recent decisions on the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act have been mixed, the court has clearly demonstrated it is not afraid to strike down rules and send the agency back to the drawing board.

"This is not a court that is afraid to act and use its powers. There is no getting around these guys. It is small, so one or two judges can make a big difference in the ultimate decision," he said.

Observers say Obama needs to make more nominations for the court or broker a deal with Republicans to get at least some of his judicial picks confirmed, or he will risk missing out on a chance to leave his mark on the court.

"If we continue on the current path of invalidating critically important rules, the DC circuit will be the graveyard for all programs, initiatives that are being pushed by the Obama administration and will affect all of us," said Nan Aron, president of the judicial rights group Alliance for Justice.

"The DC circuit has that much power."

(Reporting By Valerie Volcovici.; Editing by Ros Krasny and Andre Grenon)

View the original article here

Gun rights backers vow court fight against new Colorado laws

By Keith Coffman

DENVER (Reuters) - Only a day after Colorado's governor signed laws setting limits on ammunition and imposing background checks, gun rights advocates have vowed to sue, some county sheriffs have declined to enforce the measures, and an ammunition magazine manufacturer is leaving the state.

The measures signed into law on Wednesday by Governor John Hickenlooper will ban ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds, require universal background checks for gun buyers and force gun buyers to pay for their own background checks.

Colorado has seen two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and the legislation represented an effort to prevent those types of killings. The measures were also passed during a national debate over firearms violence reignited by the December slayings of 20 children and six adults at a school in Connecticut.

The laws' passages are considered a victory for Democrats in a state where gun ownership is treasured.

The Denver-based libertarian group Independence Institute said it would file a lawsuit either in state or federal court against Colorado seeking to block the measures that are set to go into effect on July 1.

"We're going to court and the people in 2014 are going to have an opportunity to choose a new legislature and a new governor," said David Kopel, research director for the group.

In another challenge to gun-control measures enacted after the Connecticut school shootings, a National Rifle Association affiliate filed a lawsuit on Thursday charging that New York state's laws banning assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines violated the constitutional right to bear arms.

MANUFACTURER LEAVING

Ammunition magazine manufacturer Magpul, which has a plant in Erie, Colorado, threatened before the passage of the Colorado bill to leave the state and take away what its executives said were 200 direct jobs and 400 jobs at related companies in its supply chain.

On its Facebook page, Magpul said it would go through with the threat to move, and supporters posted comments inviting them to their own states such as Missouri and Nevada.

"Our transition to a new home will occur in a phased and orderly manner to allow us to continue to serve our customers during the move, as well as to allow an orderly transition for affected employees," the company's statement on Facebook said.

A representative for Magpul did not return calls.

Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."

Meanwhile, a number of county sheriffs in Colorado have said they cannot or will not enforce the new gun control laws, even as the governor's office has directed state officials to give law enforcement agencies technical guidance on how the magazine limits in particular should be interpreted and enforced.

"We expect sheriffs to follow all state laws to the best of their abilities," Brown said.

In July 2012, a gunman opened fire in a crowded theater at the opening night of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" in the Denver suburb of Aurora, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others.

Colorado was also the site of a 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two teenagers shot dead a teacher and 12 other students before committing suicide.

(This story corrects to show Magpul is an ammunition magazine manufacturer, not an ammunition manufacturer)

(Additional reporting by Joseph Ax in New York; Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

India court upholds conviction of Bollywood actor

NEW DELHI (AP) — India's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the weapons conviction of Bollywood leading man Sanjay Dutt and ordered him to report to prison within four weeks in a case linked to the deadliest terror attack in Indian history.

Dutt's failed appeal of his conviction was part of a broader ruling by the Supreme Court on cases stemming from the 1993 bombings that killed 257 people in the financial hub of Mumbai. A total of 100 people were convicted of involvement in the blasts.

The court upheld the death sentence given to Yakub Memon, who is a brother of Ibrahim 'Tiger' Memon, an accused mastermind of the bombings who remains at large. However, the court commuted to life in prison the death sentences given to 10 other men convicted of carrying out the blasts. Some of the men have been in prison for nearly two decades.

Dutt originally had been sentenced to serve six years in prison on the charge of possessing an automatic rifle and a pistol that were supplied to him by men subsequently convicted in the bombings. He served 18 months in jail before he was released on bail in November 2007 pending an appeal in the top court.

The court shaved one year off his sentence Thursday and ordered him imprisoned within a month to finish out the remaining 3 1/2 years of his sentence. Dutt had earlier been acquitted of the more serious charges of terrorism and conspiracy.

The actor's case was part of a sprawling Mumbai bombings trial that has dragged on for 18 years. Dutt maintains he knew nothing about the bombing plot and that he asked for the guns to protect his family — his mother was Muslim and his father Hindu — after receiving threats during sectarian riots in Mumbai.

Dutt's lawyer Satish Maneshinde said the 53-year-old actor would take some time before deciding on his next step.

For now, Dutt will "abide by the apex court's order of undergoing the sentence of 3 1/2 years in letter and spirit," Maneshinde said.

"Three-and-a-half years is not a long period," he said.

The 1993 bombings were seen at the time as the world's worst terrorist attack, with 13 bombs exploding over a two-hour period across Mumbai. Powerful explosives were packed into cars and scooters parked near India's main Bombay Stock Exchange and other sites in the city. Apart from the 257 dead, more than 720 people were injured in the attack.

The bombings were believed to have been acts of revenge for the demolition of a 16th-century mosque by Hindu nationalists in northern India in 1992. After the demolition, religious riots erupted, leaving more than 800 people dead, most of them Muslims.

The court's ruling on Dutt comes as a blow for Mumbai's film industry, putting several films he was working on in limbo.

Despite his brush with the law and his stint in jail, Dutt's Bollywood career flourished over the past two decades. He gained enormous popularity for a series of Hindi films in which he played the role of a reformed thug who follows the teachings of nonviolence advocate and Indian independence hero Mohandas Gandhi.

Industry estimates said Dutt was currently involved in projects worth at least $20 million.

View the original article here